The new Fiat 500

2009-02-18 11:06:00

#26

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6922|Mhz

rdx-fx wrote:
I could stand to own an ugly little car if they could solve a few pesky design problems;

1) NOT a tinfoil deathtrap in a crash

2) Able to fit all the people and cargo I'd regularly transport in a normal month (family, grocery, work junk)

3) Able to handle moderate non-asphalt terrain. Dirt roads, construction sites, etc - not the Baha 500.

4) Enough engine to pass Mrs. SoccerMom (nee Trophy Slut) in her Living-room-on-wheels minivan, being her usual unobservant slow self on the freeway

5) Robust engineering, such that I know it'll hold together for a cross-country 2000 mile trip. And that it'll not fall apart as soon as I'm done making payments on it.

Until they solve these 5 key issues, I'll continue to look at those sub-compact 'cars' as the glorified go-carts they are.

Fiat 500
1) 5 Star NCAP safety rating, compare that to 3 star or less that 90% of large SUV type vehicles get and you see the point, bigger is NOT safer.

2) No idea what you carry but it'll take you and 3 passengers and 135 litres of whatever crap you want or 1 passenger and 550 litres of assorted junk.

3) Probably do fine if you took it easy, I drive a 206 and it does fine on building sites, or you could get a 4wd hatchback there's a couple out.

4) 500 Abarth has about 135bhp and weighs fuck all so it pulls pretty well. (~126bhp per tonne).

5) Fiats have a reputation for being a bit rubbish on build quality but the new range is pretty solid.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2009-02-18 11:15:45)

2009-02-18 12:23:33

#27

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6756|The Twilight Zone

Don't like it

https://www.fico.si/Portals/0/Slike_fickoti/Predstavitev/Janko%20Medved/amd%20sempeter.jpg

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2009-02-18 12:26:29

#28

GravyDan: Back from the Grave(y); +768|6235|CA

It could only be gayer if the hood ornament was a chrome dildo.

2009-02-18 12:29:38

#29

FrankieSpankie3388: Hockey Nut; +243|6833|Boston, MA

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
1) 5 Star NCAP safety rating, compare that to 3 star or less that 90% of large SUV type vehicles get and you see the point, bigger is NOT safer.

Nice try at trying to bash SUVs

http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx?q=suv

2009-02-18 12:37:05

#30

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7035|St. Andrews / Oslo

rdx-fx wrote:
1) NOT a tinfoil deathtrap in a crash

ummmmm, you know the safest cars are the ones that look most like tinfoil after a crash, yes?

I'd much rather crash in a Fiat 500 than an old suburban or whatever your benchmark is for huge safe american cars

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2009-02-18 13:00:42

#31

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6922|Mhz

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:
1) 5 Star NCAP safety rating, compare that to 3 star or less that 90% of large SUV type vehicles get and you see the point, bigger is NOT safer.
Nice try at trying to bash SUVs

http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx?q=suv

Nearly all 4 star, and until recently Land Rovers were barely scraping 3 stars when small cars were nearly all 4 star, now SUVs are 4 star and small cars are all 5 star, I've nothing against SUVs, they serve their purpose, what I do dislike is people incorrectly saying bigger cars are safer, they aren't.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2009-02-18 13:50:38)

2009-02-19 11:41:08

#32

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6861|Hungary

Yeah i found some on a used car website.

Old Fiat 500R - 1.167 EUR
http://www.hasznaltauto.hu/2408711_fiat_500r_1971

New Fiat 500 Sport 1.4 16V - 12.832 EUR
http://www.hasznaltauto.hu/2443021_fiat_500_2007

If you want one go for it lol!

2009-02-19 11:44:53

#33

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

Jenspm wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
1) NOT a tinfoil deathtrap in a crash
ummmmm, you know the safest cars are the ones that look most like tinfoil after a crash, yes?

I'd much rather crash in a Fiat 500 than an old suburban or whatever your benchmark is for huge safe american cars

I'll take my Subaru Imprezas, thanks.
'95 GC6, '99 GC8, '09 GE.
Excellent AWD handling in any weather, low center of gravity, reasonably rigid frame, easy to maintain parts layout, completely reliable engine/drivetrain.
('95 GC6 AWD, still runs with close to 300,000 miles on it.)

I do understand the concept behind the energy-absorbing 'crumple zone' concept.
BUT the magic tin-foil wrinkle effect only works if there is enough metal (properly laid out) to properly absorb the energy.
Use crap chinese recycled steel, instead of precision superalloy steel - and it folds itself right into the passenger area.
Use too thin of steel, and again, it folds itself into the passengers.

The whole crumple-zone concept has been taken too far, in my opinion.
It's down to the point where a low-speed fender-kiss can total the vehicles.
THAT is bullshit. THAT is 'disposable engineering'. That is the 'tinfoil' I speak of.

A good vehicle can take some abuse without bending the frame, yet properly crumple in high-energy crashes to protect the passengers.
Volvo, Mercedes, and (to a lesser extent) Subaru understand this.
The glorified go-carts popular in Europe right now .. I doubt they understand this balance.
The Euro-carts are looked on by their designers as an exercise in efficiency, and small design - crash testing is only a requirement they have to 'deal with'.

Regardless of the "barefoot redneck hicks in a '77 Suburban" image you may have of the average American, some of us actually do understand engineering.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-02-19 11:46:18)

2009-02-19 11:56:10

#34

phishman420: Banned; +821|5984

Jenspm wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
1) NOT a tinfoil deathtrap in a crash
ummmmm, you know the safest cars are the ones that look most like tinfoil after a crash, yes?

I'd much rather crash in a Fiat 500 than an old suburban or whatever your benchmark is for huge safe american cars

lol

2009-02-19 12:05:52

#35

Mr.Dooomed: Find your center.; +752|6630

DonFck wrote:
It's pretty. I want to have one and put it in my pocket.

ur wish is my command.

https://i15.ebayimg.com/03/i/001/2d/b9/a640_1.JPG

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2310/2209647605_26133a7ba9.jpg?v=0

Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.

2009-02-19 12:14:39

#36

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

Oh, wait.. this is EE, not D&ST..

Let me revise my previous statement;

Jenspm wrote:
ummmmm, you know the safest cars are the ones that look most like tinfoil after a crash, yes?
I'd much rather crash in a Fiat 500 than an old suburban or whatever your benchmark is for huge safe american cars

LOL. Go for it. Better you than me.

2009-02-19 16:17:04

#37

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6922|Mhz

Kind of explains things, I'll take the Fiesta over the Land Rover

2009-02-19 20:37:56

#38

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6803|so randum

MSN review of it. Their auto section is actually quite good

http://cars.uk.msn.com/Research/article … d=14253002

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-19 20:45:01

#39

Mutantbear: Semi Constructive Criticism; +1,431|6267|London, England

I like it

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2009-02-19 21:31:37

#40

Beduin: Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid; +510|6053|شمال

I love it...

الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic

2009-02-20 04:34:49

#41

FrankieSpankie3388: Hockey Nut; +243|6833|Boston, MA

I don't know, I still don't trust any of those crash test results. Think about it, in what situation would you be in where you drive head on into a concrete wall at 40mph? More importantly, what kind of a situation would you be in where a concrete wall comes TO YOU at 40 mph? Granted it's nice to see a car could withstand crashing like that, but I couldn't possibly see any use for those test results unless you're an absolute idiot while driving.

2009-02-20 04:55:18

#42

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6922|Mhz

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:
I don't know, I still don't trust any of those crash test results. Think about it, in what situation would you be in where you drive head on into a concrete wall at 40mph? More importantly, what kind of a situation would you be in where a concrete wall comes TO YOU at 40 mph? Granted it's nice to see a car could withstand crashing like that, but I couldn't possibly see any use for those test results unless you're an absolute idiot while driving.

It replicates a 40mph collission with a another object on the driver side, i.e. an on-coming car crossing over from it's own lane, probably one of the most common accident situations, if the Land Rover fucked up that badly at 40mph, what you think it'd do on a 30mph road where the combined impact speed is 60? You'll die, and that's at relatively low speed.

Though I personally do think it'd make more sense to do the test at 60mph.

2009-02-20 04:58:44

#43

phishman420: Banned; +821|5984

https://www.cs.unm.edu/~aaron/images/europeweb/SmartCar-10.jpg

hai gaiz id much rath3r cr4sh in this car than a suburb4n hawhaw

2009-02-20 04:59:54

#44

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6922|Mhz

Whats a Smart car got to do with anything? It's a town car it rarely goes above 20

2009-02-20 05:01:42

#45

baggs: Member; +732|6507

Voted yes, i love it, especially in that Italy livery.

2009-02-20 05:02:25

#46

phishman420: Banned; +821|5984

people saying that theyd rather be in a cardboard box at 90mph etc. also it looks about the same as the fiat, and you would probably die just as easily if you got hit by a suburban in a smart car as you would that fiat

2009-02-20 05:07:06

#47

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6922|Mhz

phishman420 wrote:
people saying that theyd rather be in a cardboard box at 90mph etc. also it looks about the same as the fiat, and you would probably die just as easily if you got hit by a suburban in a smart car as you would that fiat

You really don't have a clue about what makes a car safe do you?

I'm going back to work, the trolling is tiresome.

2009-02-20 05:12:15

#48

Lieutenant_Jensen: Your cops are corrupt.; +200|6694|fåking denmark

It's

Especially in red <3

2009-02-20 05:22:33

#49

FrankieSpankie3388: Hockey Nut; +243|6833|Boston, MA

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:
I don't know, I still don't trust any of those crash test results. Think about it, in what situation would you be in where you drive head on into a concrete wall at 40mph? More importantly, what kind of a situation would you be in where a concrete wall comes TO YOU at 40 mph? Granted it's nice to see a car could withstand crashing like that, but I couldn't possibly see any use for those test results unless you're an absolute idiot while driving.
It replicates a 40mph collission with a another object on the driver side, i.e. an on-coming car crossing over from it's own lane, probably one of the most common accident situations, if the Land Rover fucked up that badly at 40mph, what you think it'd do on a 30mph road where the combined impact speed is 60? You'll die, and that's at relatively low speed.

Though I personally do think it'd make more sense to do the test at 60mph.

Not really, if another car hits you, they're not a friggin concrete block. There's obviously going to be a lot more cushioning when a car hits you than a concrete block hitting you. What do you think, the other car hitting you is a tank on wheels? Of course that car's front end is going to crumble under the impact too. That's why I say it's a stupid test. If they really want to do some of these tests, make them crash into other cars, not into a concrete wall which really isn't realistic...

And I love how people everywhere try to abuse numbers to be in their favor. Combined speed of 60mph? And you accuse other people of trolling. Where the hell did you come up with that absolute BS number? Just because both cars are going 30mph, doesn't make the crash a 60mph crash... The only way you could even say a combined 60mph was if they came head on into each other in a straight line both going 30 mph. In which case, they'd stop because only an idiot would be in a crash like that. Which again leads me to my previous statement, that you won't be in a serious crash unless you're a complete jackass behind the wheel.

2009-02-20 05:59:10

#50

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6922|Mhz

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:
FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:
I don't know, I still don't trust any of those crash test results. Think about it, in what situation would you be in where you drive head on into a concrete wall at 40mph? More importantly, what kind of a situation would you be in where a concrete wall comes TO YOU at 40 mph? Granted it's nice to see a car could withstand crashing like that, but I couldn't possibly see any use for those test results unless you're an absolute idiot while driving.
It replicates a 40mph collission with a another object on the driver side, i.e. an on-coming car crossing over from it's own lane, probably one of the most common accident situations, if the Land Rover fucked up that badly at 40mph, what you think it'd do on a 30mph road where the combined impact speed is 60? You'll die, and that's at relatively low speed.

Though I personally do think it'd make more sense to do the test at 60mph.
Not really, if another car hits you, they're not a friggin concrete block. There's obviously going to be a lot more cushioning when a car hits you than a concrete block hitting you. What do you think, the other car hitting you is a tank on wheels? Of course that car's front end is going to crumble under the impact too. That's why I say it's a stupid test. If they really want to do some of these tests, make them crash into other cars, not into a concrete wall which really isn't realistic...

And I love how people everywhere try to abuse numbers to be in their favor. Combined speed of 60mph? And you accuse other people of trolling. Where the hell did you come up with that absolute BS number? Just because both cars are going 30mph, doesn't make the crash a 60mph crash... The only way you could even say a combined 60mph was if they came head on into each other in a straight line both going 30 mph. In which case, they'd stop because only an idiot would be in a crash like that. Which again leads me to my previous statement, that you won't be in a serious crash unless you're a complete jackass behind the wheel.

30+30 is 60... yes the concrete is harder, probably why they only do the test at a piddly 40mph. And most head on collisions are caused by people driving while drunk or falling asleep at the wheel, in which case they are usually speeding, and in the case of falling asleep at the wheel they'll make no attempt to break, if you come across someone like that on the road theres a chance you wont be able to avoid them regardless of how well you are driving, there's always some cretin who'll hit you, good drivers have accidents it's a simple fact.

EDIT: It's not just a concrete block btw.

Frontal impact
The safety of the front of the car is tested by a collision of the test car against an immovable, concrete block to which a deformable element is mounted simulating a collision opponent.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2009-02-20 06:04:15)

Yes	31%	31% - 14
No	68%	68% - 31
Total: 45

BF2S Forums The new Fiat 500

Poll

rdx-fx wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

phishman420 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

Board footer